Merrilyn Goos University of Limerick, Ireland Thesis examination: Similarities to, and differences from, journal article and conference paper reviewing Merrilyn Goos University of Limerick, Ireland

Your questions Who has … examined a PhD thesis? (T) reviewed a journal article? (J) reviewed a conference paper? (C) done none of these? Pair up with “someone like you” and ask each other a question. Pair up with “someone not like you” and ask each other a question. Write at least ONE QUESTION and put it in the question box.

Some (superficial) comparisons Dimension PhD thesis Conference paper Journal article Author’s research experience Novice Varies Manuscript scope Report of a substantial research project Up to 300 pages Small slice of research 8-10 pages Complemented by oral presentation Slice of research 20-30 pages Opportunity for revision? Yes No Time needed to complete review/report 3-4 days 1 hour 3-4 hours Length of report 4-6 pages plus list of corrections Half page (structured by review criteria) 1-2 pages

Some (more interesting) comparisons Dimension PhD thesis Conference paper Journal article Decision options No changes Minor corrections Revisions Revise and resubmit Do not award degree Accept or reject Accept as short communication Accept Minor revisions Major revisions Reject Decision purpose & consequences Award degree and title Entrée to academia Attendance and presentation at conference Contribute to research literature Tenure and promotion Author/reviewer relationship Single blind or non-blinded Report can be used to decide awards or prizes, or in job applications Examiners can become job referees and collaborators Double blind Double blind or single blind

Review criteria for a (MERGA) conference paper Review criteria are related to the quality of: Statement of the problem/issue and discussion of its significance Literature review and theoretical framework Methodology and data analysis (where appropriate) Results and discussion Conclusions and implications

Review criteria for a journal article (ESM) Reviewers are asked to assess the extent to which the study: makes an original contribution to knowledge in mathematics education; has clearly stated aims; offers a critical review of relevant research literature that provides the theoretical basis for the study; if an empirical study, has a clearly described and well justified design and methodology; presents a well-founded and cogently argued analysis, with conclusions that follow from the data, literature, and/or argument; is interesting and accessible to an international audience.

Examination criteria for a PhD thesis Makes an original and significant contribution to knowledge Demonstrates capacity to undertake independent research Demonstrates competence in surveying literature Methodology is appropriate and applied effectively Satisfactory standard of literary presentation Potential for publication

What do I look for? Coherence: Confidence: Critique: Does the literature review inform the conceptual and analytical framework? Does the candidate come back to it in the Conclusion to identify the contribution to knowledge? Are the research questions expressed consistently throughout the thesis? Does the research design provide evidence to address the research questions? Are the research questions answered? Confidence: Does the candidate demonstrate mastery of the literature and the methodology? Using an authoritative tone but with appropriate restraint in making claims? Critique: Is the candidate aware of limitations of the study and what cannot be claimed?

Some nuts and bolts I expect the thesis to pass. And I accept that it was not written just for me. I commit to my own serious intellectual engagement with the thesis. I set aside a block of time, preferably 3-4 consecutive days. Presentation matters!

Writing the report Begin with a summary of the thesis and overall appraisal of its quality, contribution to knowledge etc. Then present an analysis and critique of each chapter, offering suggestions for publishing from the thesis and identifying passages that must be revised. Summarise required revisions. List typographical corrections.

Your questions